Skip to main content

About this Show


News/Business. Business news and interviews; with Neil Cavuto. New.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v761






Syria 17, Us 13, Neil 9, Assad 6, Russia 6, China 6, Ron Paul 5, Bet 4, Google 4, U.s. 4, New York 3, Sandra 3, Donald Rumsfeld 3, Obama 2, Brent 2, Mr. Baldwin 2, Gm 2, United States Postal 2, Nascar 2, Ron 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX Business    Cavuto    News/Business. Business news and  
   interviews; with Neil Cavuto. New.  

    August 28, 2013
    8:00 - 9:01pm EDT  

nsurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to® and try it today. neil: red line drawn, crossed, missiles, and the only question is set for what? ♪ welcome, everybody. assad, is he ready for this one? either an idiot or doesn't have internet because we've begin him more than enough warning it's coming, the missiles are coming, the punishment is coming. that does not mean you are going, assad. we're not out to topple him. i guess just scare him. like i said, since we've given him a head use up with the attack, what is really up? what are we really trying to prove? that chemical weapons are a no-no and never use them again on his people? well, okay. he switches to bombing and
shooting them. aren't they still just as dead? isn't he still in power just the same to keep slaughtering? we've determined it's the humanitarian thing to do to intercede when dictators act inhumanly, but only how they kill their people, not whether they kill the people. chemical's office, but anything else, not as awful. bashar, next time, use bullets. thank us in the mirren time we give you plenty of time to prepare for our missiles, donald rumsfeld on the dangers of administration promising it's quick and dirty when it could leave more questions than answers. secretary rumsfeld, great to have you. what do you make of this and why we're going to do this? >> it's difficult for someone on the outside to know, first of all, what's happening on the ground, and, second, what's in the mind of the administration.
as you point out properly, the idea of demystifying what you're going to do for the enemy is mindless. i can't imagine what they are thinking, why they want the assad regime to have crystal clarity with respect to what they, you know -- i must say this. i do think that we should all -- if u.s. military forces are going to be involved in any way, we want to wish them god speed. i think that secretary of state kerry was dealt a bad hand as a result of decisions that have been made over the preceding four years by the clinton state department and the obama white house, and i do concede that it's a complicated situation. neil: now, i know, secretary, we're not into regime change and that whether this is the obama administration's way saying we're not doing what bush,
rumsfeld, and cheney did. you know the line. we're going to keep the guy in power. it's not about taking him out of power. it's about defanging him. let's say he takes the chemical weapons away, secretary. he still has guns, has tanks, has the power to kill his people, all be it not with chemicals, so, for what? >> caller: neil, he's estimated to have killed close to a hundred thousands syria people before the use of chemical weapons. neil: exactly right. >> caller: if this is a humanitarian mission, what's interesting, seems to me, is that we -- there has not been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation. if you think of what's really important in that region, it is two things. it's iran's nuclear program and
the relationship between iran and syria, the assad regime, with respect to funding terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women, and children including americans. neil: do you think that russia or china act on their threat, don't do anything, don't attack syria. what could, would they do, or bluff or what? >> caller: it's hard to know. there's no question, but each of the two countries, the people's republic of china and russia have leaders that are fundamentally opposed to our values and our interests, and we have a lot of interests around the world, and they have the capability of doing things that are adverse to our end, and the fundamental problem we got in the united states is that this administration has been in a withdrawal mode, in an apology mode, in a mode of managing our economy in a way that tells the world we're not going to be the
kind of a factor in two, five, six, eight, ten years going out, and, therefore, that vacuum we've created is being filled by people who don't have our values or our interest, and that gives china and russia an opportunity to do things that are fundamentally against what we as a country and the american people woulddprefer to have happen ped neil: donald rumsfeld, thank you so much. great hearing you again. >> caller: neil, whatever happens, we have to hope it ends well for our country's standpoint. neil: thank you very much. rand paul says this is all the more reason just to stay out, we can't pick who will be in charge or dictate whether someone should stay in charge, so ron paul, you heard donald rumsfeld, did anything dissuade you of that view? >> oh, hardly. hardly should he be considered an expert on the region. he gave us iraq and afghanistan,
and he was buddies with hussein, you know, worked with him when hussein was actually using poisen gaseses, and look at where iraq is today. it's a disaster. it's more allied with iran right now, and the al-qaeda's in iraq, and there's a death toll coming up every single day. hardly would he be able to give us advice on what to do in afghanistan. neil: having said that, i will say this, there is some debate as to whether he individually encouraged hussein to use gaseses on his people. leaving that aside. i want to stress this, sir, if i can. is it your sense, then, that his other argument that russia or china could take advantage of this and seize on this vacuum if we do not? >> i did make that accusation just to clarify, but we as a country and he part of it, actually, we were allies with hussein, but that's another subject. you're asking about the danger
of escalation, really, with russia and china. i think it's very, very serious, and i think the markets are telling us that, and i think the price of oil is telling us that because it's really a big thing, so, yes, it's supposed to be a toke p. one of the reasons they say, well, this is not regime change because we're not really pos -- positive who set off the gas. i mean, the group that's most likely to benefit from that is al-qaeda. they, you know, ignite some gas, people die, blame it on assad. assad, i don't think, is an idiot or would do it on purpose in order for the whole world to come down on him. neil: you question whether assad used the gas and that he's just set up? >> look how many lies were told us to about hussein. more propaganda. endless, happens all the time. neil: to be fair, it's in the past, hussein used weapons against his people, but the
argument is good. i guess what i want to advance here is this, that if a dictator uses chemical weapons on his own people, is it a litmus test for us to help the people? for ron paul, what is? >> well, i think getting to the truth of it, and that's what we're not getting to because when saddam hussein used the gases, some of the products were bought from us and he was still our ally. you can't ignore that. i think it's a false flag, i think really, indeed, and nobody knows if he was slaughtering people by the thousands with poisennedded gas, you know, that's another story, but that's not the case. as a matter of fact, a hundred thousand deaths is the case. the implication is that assad committed a hundred thousand killings. there's a lot of factions. why not ask, you know, about al chi --
al-qaeda? why on the side of al-qaeda? they wanted weapons, rebels want the weapons, there's a bunch of people in al-qaeda's part of it, and this is the task for us to drop a couple bombs, send 234 weapons -- neil: you argue we're sucked in? >> big time. it's big risk. what if there's an accident and a hundred russians are killed by our bombs? some type of unintended consequences, wars expand because of unintended consequences and provide short term wars. just think of all the promises over in iraq. short term, not much money. neil: in and out, quick and dirty. >> don't believe it. we should look at what's best for america and not trying to pick sides in an impossible war like this not on the side of the american people, and the american people right now, by a very large majority oppose the war. the constitution can't support the war, and morally, we can't support the war, getting
involved in a civil war and a strike that's. going on in the region for thousands of years. neil: right about that. we have very unclear rationale for doing what we're doing. we'll see. ron paul. in the meantime, play this out to ron paul's argument. missiles launched, message sent, assad unnoticed. rick a bell here? didn't bill clinton do this with hussein and reagan with gadhafi? shaken, stirred, and for years still stirring and plotting and killing until we came back and, well, kill them. that's the thing about messages, it requires the not receiving them to understand them. more often than not, the nut does not. a word for warning for investors out there looking for certainty that wants missiles fired, things go back to normal, and the syria sicko is humbled, but if he stays in power, there's
uncertainty. what do you think, steve? >> you're spot on, you know, to rumsfeld's point, paul's point, we're sucked into an environment we don't want to be politically, ethically, or morally. that said, i can't afford to be political in the chief investment strategist but look at what happens to the markets. investors have a narrow window to take action. do things like protect their portfolio because -- neil: how would you do that? if everything's hitting the fan, i know gold, oil, all that stuff, but, i mean, if the markets are better that once the missile strike is done, whatever they call it after a couple days is done, if it's another repeat of the clinton narrative, then it's back to business as usual and up certainty is gone. you say, no, no, no. what are you doing? >> i, yeah, i'm in the no, no, no category because this is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. no way to go to war halfway. here's the thing; right? i think they need to look at trailing stops.
what's the point of pain? we run up marsh 2009 lows, big gains, can they take profits? hedge portfolios? gold's a part of that. dividend investing in stocks hold up better. can they -- neil: all of the above is something you hang on to presumably for some weeks and maybe months here regardless that this looks like it's over in a couple days? >> yeah, this is not a short term game here. that, to ron paul's point, that region has been in conflict for thousands of years, a quick strike or two does not change the game. investors have to have a long term perspective, and they have to get their list ready because if nothing changed, a lot of great companies will be put on sale. that's a cliche, but investors have a bad habit of doing the right thing at the wrong time. if they run for the door, look who put the money in the corner and pick it up. neil: i love you about that. after armageddon, there's something to be constructed. good having you, my friend.
thank you very much. he's been uncanningly impressive on trend in the past. bear in mind what he says. you think the oil market after the missiles? think again. whatever cause we get won't preless, but provide time to reload and for you to pay up. ♪ [ male announcer ] these days, a small business can save by sharing.
like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪
neil: $150 a barrel oil on the way. if the syria crisis spreads. the brokerage firm that's talking about sort of like the worst of perfect storms here with brent crude, prices jump another 40 bucks, higher than now, if countries like iraq shut down production on syria hostilities and other countries in that oil rich region follow suit. up likely, but, you know, not unimaginable, and if brent oil, used by the european starts rockenning, sandra smmth hears talks our own oil prices could quickly follow suit. sandra's in chicago at the cme. sandra, what are you hearing about that? >> hey, neil, they are calling for $150 brent crude saying that, as you said, it's not
likely, but it's not all together impossible that we're going to see high prices. they are saying this would be dependent on not only a u.s. strike in syria, but this is also dependent on a very significant, as they put it, supply disruption over in the middle east, so the biggest fear now is not the oil coming from syria itself because as we know, we don't see a lot of oil coming from syria, but it's the close proximity the country has to other major oil producing nations and also it's home to pipelines and some very important seaways that carry the crude we here in the united states use that could be disrupted. is it reality that we see 150? right now, that's in question, but if there is a strike and a significant disruption, certainly, that could be in play. neil: countries rich in oil, we remind people when it comes to crisis in egypt, syria, they are not big oil producers, nowhere on scene in that regard, but they get sympathetic reduction
cuts from the neighbors, then that would be in the pileup, but it's unlikely. the obvious question now, to the folks you talked to, saying right now, sandra, we think this is over done, we think it's run up, already run too far? >> right, if we see 150, it's not going to last long, and the price target is $115 for our benchmark here, which is about at 110 as it stands, so what they are saying would happen is if we get a strike, a pop in oil prices, but, neil, as seen in the past with libya in 2011, you get spikes in the price of oil, and what happens? the saudis step in, ramp up production, and replace the canceled output, and then you see all the prices come back down. neil: that's right. >> any significant jump up in oil prices, such as 115 or 150 for brent will not last long.
that's the call by most analysts looking now. neil: we shall see. that's the history of the first iraq war, second iraq war, run up ahead, fall down after. sandra, great having you again, and, again, great having you back. i noticed global crisis are everywhere since you returned from maternity leave. we'll talking about that later. meanwhile, anniversary bummer, 50 years after this, we're going nuts over what happened with this? shame on us. shouldn't we be more concerned by the shameless punk trying to capitalize on him and pounding still more government programs quoting him. they saying it's what martin would have wanted. really? martin's dead. i think now he's furious. ♪ any last requests mr. baldwin? do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser?
i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise. okay. it's easy to erase any recent travel expense i want. just pick that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps,'s taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your wallet?
♪ kneel kneeling fifty years later, what have we learned? i'm not talking about racism, i think and hope we made progress there, but government smending, under the guides of helping people, little progress there because the war on poverty, hate to break it to youings we're losing, my friend. a year after martin luther king spoke on the steps of the lincoln memorial, waste upon waste warrants its own memorial that should read "in memory of taxpayers in all races and creeds for good money gone bad and good goals never gone realized." this is despite spending more than 16 trillion since johnson's war on poverty, yet we have a higher percentage of americans today in poverty, more americans than ever going hungry even though we have one in three on food assistance. there's medicare, ambitious program started in 1965 # to
help elderly with medical needs at a cost of $56 million. today, it's a budget of half a trillion with obligations north of a trillion dollars. for all the trillions, still spent, what happens? why do government pushing crawls out of the wood work today using king's name push for more? richard benson, says because we should and they should, especially on this set, to ron myers who says, we should stop and reassess, especially on this day. okay. richard, you're -- your argument is all these programs, all these trillions spent, all supposedly, today, espoused under the name of martin whriewter king, money well-spent? >> yes, but you're pointing out what government is doing, but we also have the private business sector -- neil: i'm not talking about that, but the government, we, as taxpayers, yielding little results. >> all that government money in
the world cannot account for the business changes we've seen in the 40 last years hallowing out the middle class, workers' wages plummeting down, wall street executive wages going up, ceo wages going up, so this wealth inequality explains poverty seen, and it -- neil: you'd think the 16 trillion would at least stop that, slow that, change that. >> what about the figure of money, trillions that have gone way -- neil: i will get to the other guests, but i want to be clear. you don't think the 16 trillion was wasted? >> it's not been wasted. not only has it not been wasted, but look at the wasted money we've spent giving unfair subsidies to already profitable businesses in the society when worker productivity has gone up. neil: all right. i would think that in comparison to the 16 trillion, i could be wrong. ron, what say you?
>> rich has a good point we wasted money on wall street before, but that does not justify we made zero progress on what we solve, and we tried this war on poverty that failed. when i talk to folks, running for congress in northern virginia, and i talk to folks in woodbridge, a predominantly african-american -- neil: reach out to the opponents of little aveigh, but continue. >> didn't mean to throw it in there, but i talk about the problems on a daily basis, and they are worried the programs are not working, no progress, and they want school choice. the biggest thing on their mind is can they've give their kids a better opportunity down the road. neil: you are saying that whatever the government has done, ron, failed, and so -- >> no, no, we have to try something new. >> less money going out to the government is doing better, is he saying? neil: stop the government madness, stop the multitrillion dollar wars on poverty, leaves us poor, the one in three on
some sort of food help and support leaving the same percentage of americans going hungry, stop it. >> you couldn't begin to do that unless you raise the minimum wage, unless you agree to protect workers in giving them the right to protect themselves against corporations in terms of organizing, and so if he did that, i ask him whether he'd be willing to increase minimum wage to swap that. neil: good question, a little crazy, richard is a crazy, but lovable guy, but what do you think of that? swap out all the trillions spent, apparently have gone nowhere, and if you give us some of the other stuff -- >> yeah, well, i think what we have to look at with policies that worked for the community. minimum wage, it's not done an incredible amount of good, but policies that have work, when reagan did tax reform in the 80s, there was a 30% drop in black youth unemployment, now it's at 42%.
42%. we had a president -- neil: stop there. if king were alive today and knew would what happens with the federal money to help minorities getting on their feet, help the starving stop starving, what do you think he'd say? >> i think he'd be disappointed. i think he'd try to call for new policies. rather than retrying things that have not worked, we're at the same place as 50 years ago, look at something new, a different way of empowering people and empowering people who are low income to have new opportunities and fresh chances. that's why i -- i'll come back to it, school choice is an important issue to look at. neil: fair enough. if he were to come back, and he's dead, how can we know, but if you were to come back and look at what's happened, all the money, what's it's yielded, would he talk about what you say business is doing more or what? >> i want to be -- i do want to go on this empowering note, this
optimistic note meaning we allowed ourselves to get caught flat footed with the changes, with globalization and technology. we didn't have a policy, and so all these minorities in cities, particularly, are left without jobs. he dieded, by the way, going, striking with garbage workers when he died. neil: that's right. >> he cares for average workers who in the new economy, we're caught flat footed, and so on an optimistic note, we believe in empowerment, not just a question of government spending -- >> support school choice then? >> how can we go to a new economy that's not simply low wage with the jobs that don't pay -- neil: all right, guys, i think we conclude here that at least begin our track record, the government's record on solving, it's failed. maybe it's time to reprioritize, and you offer good ideas in that regard. gentlemen, thank you. meanwhile, half a trillion dollar fine for bad bet curtesy of u.s. governments with a wale
singling out an investment bank of losing money because in the end the firm made money. the government punishing it now is good at losing. ♪ and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.
neil: call them jpmorgan chased, humbled with a fine over a wale of a bad trade, called a $66 --
$6 billion bad bet, the trader gone rogue, despite it all, the bank made a lot of money that quarter. government coming down on them? making money in any quarter, and, in fact, far more adept of digging financial holes than making taxpayers remotely whole. it doesn't matter. five years after the meltdown, don't you find it odd now the government's coming down on the jpmorgan chase's, bank of america, and well fargos? weird, weird; right? >> it's like me telling you how to run a news show. it's cia -- crazy. kneel kneel you could. >> i absolutely could not. neil: you are good. >> you know more than i will ever know. you have jpmorgan -- neil: i can offer dietary advice, but the point is, we'll take it. >> jpmorgan chase, three months of the year, they took in $25 billion, made $6.5 billion.
federal government? not so good. 642 billion deficit this year, headed towards a -- neil: by the way, that is seen as progress because it's not as bad as it was. it shunk. as a great lawyer, what do you do if you represent the taxpayer? they are the ones calling the shots, and if they shoot banks, that's how it is. >> a great question. talk about shooting blanks, when you make $6.5 billion, you pay $80 million to get rid of something. it's a cost of doing business. the point is, if you want real reform, stop with the sound bites, stop with the fines, and look at the root of the problem, and i would respectfully submit, bring people in who are in a position to actually talk about the problems because, again, how could you actually listen to a government telling you when, hey, i'm making money, you lose money, and you tell me what to do? neil: i don't mean to surprise you, but say in the end, after they are done with j pmorgan and
hundreds of millions of dollars lookedded at in fines for this and god knows what other infractions, and where did that money go? who does that rest constitute? >> probably to fund the government ridiculous party. unfortunately, it ends up in a black hole. i don't know that any of us know, i'm sure in that huge book that's 50,000 pages thick, it says where the money's supposed to go, but lord only knows if it gets there, and because taxes are continuing to go up, it ain't going to reduce the tax load. neil: so five years after the meltdown, right, a couple weeks from that, and i i think to myself, granted, you know, why now? is it because of the five-year anniversary is upon us and they want to look like they have done something? to me, it's more than coincidental this happened and all this drum beating on all the big brokerage guys is happening at the same time. >> well, again, great question. it would be one thing if the government were talking about real reform. if they wanted to go in, sit
down with the banks, and come up with this solution, not just -- anybody can tell you what's wrong. it's a matter of fixing it, and bank's doing well, and i don't think a lot of people are complaining, but if there's a problem, let's deal with the problem so it doesn't happen again. merely tagging with fines for press releases for announcements, who cares? it doesn't change the problem. fix the problem or you continue to become part of the problem. i think that's where everyone should say, wait a min, what are you going to do to stop this from happening? merely telling them they pay a fine, who cares? it is like shooting king congress -- king kong with a spit ball. nobody cares. neil: that makes you a great lawyer, a great debater on this stuff. he's right. i mean, again, i don't think either randy nor i or apoll gists for banks, and recognize the role of gunning a system, that, by the way, congress created.
congress wanted the guys to aggressively lend because housing and owning a home went from being a goal to damn near birthright, and these finds and punishments that go beyond bogus trades are really at the core of the government's goal. they pushed the banks into this type much behavior. don't let anyone tell you otherwise. it's the banks who are sucking it up, and the rest. all right. we told you the president was quick to pounce on this nsa mess to see how the heck it got messy. what we did not tell you is that it would take 60 days to find out. ♪
neil: all right. good news on this whole nsa mess. in 60 days, 60 days, we'll get to the bottom of this, 60 days.
that's how long we have to wait to hear from the president's so-called surveillance panel to release initial findings, 60 days. imagine how much could happen in that time. why, look what happened in the last 60 days. on the heels the government collected 115 million americans phone records, we heard they were demanding and getting billions of e-mails from every major online site out there; then news that the nsa had 75% of all internet traffic under its watch, reports later that courts slapped the nsa more than a few times for this kind of overreach over just the last few years; then snooping on phone calls made abroad, phone calls from abroad, and nsa snoops spying on girlfriends, later explained it's just a few snoops on just a few girlfriends, and that's just in the lass 60 days. can you imagine what we'll discover in the next 60 days? the hills managing editor on, be care. what can happen --
be careful what can happen in a short amount of time, man, oh, man, imagine the infractions. >> yeah, neil, snowden says he'll reveal more now that he's in russia, basically under the agreement he can't reveal more, but somehow, the information gets out. that's a problem for the white house. neil, i think, really, this hurts president obama with his base. coupled with syria, especially the nsa stuff, and that's going to hurt him potentially in the 2014 midterm elections because you got to have the base out, and the more revelations, this is drip, drip, drip, a problem. neil: you're a great student of the town you live in, but tell you what, when a commission or a surveillance panel, whatever, comes out with something, isn't it just boring? in other words, don't -- does anyone really listen to it? history suggests that whatever blue ribbon commission report comes out, it's in a nice leather binder, put on a shelf to collect dust. >> that's right, it collects dust.
if you want to ensure that nothing will happen, you put a task force together and commission. i think president obama has to make some changes, but, remember, the head of nsa, general al exander pushes back strongly behind the scenes on meaningful type of privacy protections because, remember, president obama said, at first, he said, well, we're not reading about abuses here, and then all the sudden, we read about abuses, and he said every member of congress was briefed on the nsa program, and that was not necessarily the case. some members were. the president, i think, is going to have to come up with significant reforms and maybe call on congress to pass a few of them, but, you know, in this town, a lot passes. neil: what might give him cover and there's signing now, all the hacking incidents and everything else, you want the nsa doing this stuff. you might see it as overreach, but the alternative is you're dead or your bank account disappears or the alternative is you can't get on your favorite sites. i know how the game goes because both parties play the fear thing.
what do you think? >> sure, definitely, no doubt about it. the bushed 5 mrgs did that. the obama add mfertion did that. they have not made a convincing argument on specific attacks that they've thwarted, and that's what you heard from senator rand paul. you have not heard the details because if they were out there, they would reveal some of them. of course, some of the stuff is classified, can't reveal everything, but a political dilemma. fear plays here. if president obama can convince the public that these programs make the united states safer, well, he'll win the argument. it's defensive. that's why they formed the commission. neil: 60 days to find out. bob, thank you very much my friend. in the meantiie, twitter, time, syria, worried about this guy's response to the missiles? what if i already told you he has responded and the proof is just a point and click away? ♪
any last requests mr. baldwin? do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser? i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise okay. it's easy to erase any recent travel expense i want. just pk that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps,'s taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your wallet?
neil: they call themselves the syria electronic army, and they are not waiting for our attack. they are attacking us knew because this group of hackers supposedly sympathetic to the syria president assad brought our mightyist power houses down, if even temporarily, "new york times," twitter, washington times, stop in their tracks. we don't know why. we don't know how. we don't know if syria is the who. we know it's beginning to look like a pattern. no one is sure if similar attacks on cnn, time, or washington post came from the syria source, but what nay are sure it is it is happening a lot. could be a link with nasdaq's
shut down last week or amazon's hit before that or facebook's page the week before that. what's clear is that it does keep happen, and the best corporate fire walls on the planet can't stop it from happening, so who needs guns when some high-tech nerds can do significantly more damage? to former new york home security secretary. they could do more damage? >> absolutely, the coordinated attacks, taking down operating systems, so many things run by a supervisory data operating corral, that's how we run our trains, planes, and all different things, and you get into the systems, there's real havoc. why fire a weapon when you do anonymously and from someplace far away have impacts? that's what you are seeing. the new york times and agencies are great target because of the media and publicity you get for
the cause. that's not the threat. the threat is what they do behind the scenes. first of all, there's data exfiltrations. for years, companies and as for -- government operatives in china come and take information, take intellectual capital, take pa tend -- neil: done that with our intelligence. >> creating an empire for themselves. neil: it's tick for tack. if you don't see your point, earlier in the break, you know, attack us, easily, we eventually find out who did it, we attack back. how do you respond to a hack attack? >> particularly, today, because the technology evolves almost minute-by-minute, and now you can spoof your address of where you are coming from, and there's a million different cutouts you can use to make sure you mask where you are coming from. the nsa enu.s. are good at finding you, but, again, it's not a clear case of oh, this came from this person sitting here. neil: if you're not ashamed to
say you're the syria electronic army, yao not coming from ireland. what's the purpose there? >> that's publicity. we can reach you across your ocean. neil: attack us, lob missiles at us, but we're knocking down your -- >> it's the first step in a global response. we're going to take all hackers, you're the bully, even though using chemical weapons is okay, you know, moral -- i hope for them, but they come and show they have the ability to attack the mighty united states where it hurts most, in our cyber capacity. that's the type of thing that, frankly, we should be doing a much better job than the federal government. we should be focusing on this issue. neil: well, for all we know, the nsa is. we'll see. could i ask you, are these attacks, when i see them happen, some are short lived, a few minutes, and they are up and running again or hours, but the bottom line is, i almost get the feeling they are practice runs for something. >> sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, and sometimes
folks have a specific goal to get to. sometimes it's an attempt to see how far you can penetrate. the real danger is the things we don't see, and it's the information, the money that is taken, and you never hear about it, and that's part of the challenge here. we're not sharing the information of the threats and attacks are because congress has not able to craft a solution for that. we don't know what constitutes cyber secure. as you know, 85% of the assets are not held by government and private sector. the private sector is looking for leadership, not necessarily regulation, but leadership as to how to make their own operations secure, make that supply chain secure. p we're not there yet. we have been struggling for years and years on the issue. neil: as you say, all this money to keep us physically safe with big defense, all that, cyber safe might be a good idea too. >> absolutely, why -- where we need to go. neil: thank you very much. tesla, they love you, but wait until you find out how much love good main street press will buy
you. ♪ ñ@ç@çpçpçpç÷ñoxmhmhyhyhyhy
neil: thinking of getting shares of tesla a test drive? put on the brakes. the market cap topped $20 billion. keep in mind, general motors is less than $50 billion. that's great for investors until we look under the hood on this, tesla is only expecting to sell 20,000 cars this year, and gm already sold 1.6 million of them so far this year. david asman says investors have to be careful because this is proof tesla is over valued, and al louis says dave cocchiarella is over valued. no, he didn't say that at all. represents a good bet. david, what do you think? >> these guys from denver don't know squat. all right. this point is it's ridiculous. the stock market has been zooming up into crazy levels. most savvy investors agree that the levels of current stock prices exceeded the returns, and this is just a super uber
example of that. it's ridiculous. it's a single model they produced in a single factory that they have, and you have a $20 billion market cap? that's $20 billion. that's ridiculous. >> well, maybe gm is under valued. >> no. neil: what do you think, al? >> i think dave is absolutely right if you look at the fundamentals of the company, but that's not what you should look at. i thought the company would go the way of solyndra or solar companies that sprouted up at the same time. he defieded the critics all the way. it's a company making electric toys for rich kids. >> that's right, sub subsidizedy taxpayers in california, by the way. >> absolutely, it's the future of automotive technology if it keeps going the way it's going. >> it can't be the future of any technology if it is subsidized by the u.s. taxpayer. it has to be fully sub sigh subsidized by consumers. neil: nice looking car in the
parking lot. >> people are surprisedded by the profit it turned, and that's hope. da't bet on the company because of the 20,000 cars, but bet on it because they built a company from scratch in the middle of the worst recession our country's seen -- >> with our help, with a lot of taxpayer help. i am betting on the car company. i think the guy's a genius, he's a smart, savvy, entrepreneur. i wish him all the luck in the world, but i don't think the company is worth $20 billion. that simple. >> i think yoir right. neil: next issue, maybe it's inside because while google's web search and android operating systems are the big revenue drivers, it's having a hell of a time selling products, google glasses, still a year off or more, the company's wants promising nexus four phones, crashing the price by four bucks to drum up interest, are they gagging? >> i thought that's how you had insight into my character was you had the glasses?
peering into my mind. i just don't think the company's known for existing in the internet as google is do that well when they actually make real products that you can put on the table or on the shelf. i mean, they -- it's a different mind set dealing in the internet mind in terms of dealing with actual products you make. i mean, you look at microsoft trying to make the surface. that didn't turn out well. neil: al, way do you think? >> well, you know, going the has so much cash, so huge, done so well, they can make a lot of mistakes, neil. kneel -- neil: entirely search engine driven? great, it's money you can't count, but entirely dependent on that search engine. >> well, so far it's working for them. i mean, this stock's done great this year, pulled back -- neil: first couple days of the titanic trip was a dream. you don't buy that analogy?
>> cruel, neil. >> you use it every single day. neil: i won't go there. that was mean. >> by the way, i believe in google. nobody does search like google does. i have hope in the stock staying at $900, but as far as product, i don't see it? >> al, you do or do not? >> you know what? they will lowering the price of the phones, that's why we are having the conversation, we think, wow, they don't sell well, but apple has a cheaper version of the iphone. the phones will be so competitive going forward, and the fight right now is between samsung and apple, and google's also there, and it's not going to matterment i don't think it's going to dent the future of the company. neil: all right, gentlemen, final issue, time warner full stream ahead hooking up with microsoft to deliver 300 channels on that xbox 360 your kids play with or maybe you do. dave, this is a move to take op line customers back from netflix. >> it does indeed.
a problem is that retailers find out that consumers are not spending money -- the consumers are smarter. they are not spending money on apparel like they used to, and they spend money on hard sources, but they are looking at phone bills, looking at the cable bills, thinking of ways to cut back. even though time warner initially benefits from that, i get that because you have to have a time warner account to get the stream on your device, but, still, eventually, consumers say, huh, if i get this on my device, maybe i don't need espn if i'm an 80-year-old woman and not interested or need hbo if i'm a bible belter and don't like the stuff on hbo. this may lead to time warner getting less money in the long run. in the end, time warner could lose. it's great for xbox and netflix, but time warner may not sell a 3 # 00-channel package because consumers are more discretionary. neil: i wonder, although, time warner is lousy for service, my
opinion, the xbox, who do i call? what do you think? who benefits in this various arrangement here? >> i don't know because i don't see how the consumer benefits all that much. you know, all this programming is just getting split and fragmented. you got apple tv. you got netflix. i have all these products. i can never find a movie i want because, you know, the movie rights go to one channel and not the other channel. neil: that's right. >> i'm often having to run out to redbox and putting my credit card in the box for a video because i can't find it on any of this stuff. it's set up so people can play games and watch programs and switch back and forth in rapid succession. what i want to know, neil, what game will people play watching your show? neil: you don't want to know. >> al, the perfect way to get out of the dilemma, there's dlsh hire a 7-year-old. neil: exactly right. exactly right. right now, my kids are hacking
into advanced data networks as we speak. guys, i want to thank you all very, very much, we'll see how it works out tomorrow. in the meantime, have a safe, profitable week. ♪